The Complainant is Credit Karma, Inc. of San Francisco, California, United States of America ("United States"), represented by Reed Smith LLP, United States.
The Respondents are Zhichao Yang of Hefei, Anhui, China, Private Registration, Domains By Proxy, LLC of Scottsdale, Arizona, United States, and PRIVACYDOTLINK CUSTOMER 2444911, PRIVACYDOTLINK CUSTOMER 2447251, PRIVACYDOTLINK CUSTOMER 2447234, PRIVACYDOTLINK CUSTOMER 2447222 of Seven Mile Beach, Grand Cayman, Cayman Islands, Overseas Territory of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland ("United Kingdom"). 2. The Domain Names and Registrars
The disputed domain names , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , and are registered with GoD, LLC.
The disputed domain names , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , and are registered with TurnCommerce, Inc. DBA NameB.
The disputed domain names , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , and are registered with Uniregistrar Corp (collectively GoD, LLC, TurnCommerce, Inc. DBA NameB and Uniregistrar Corp will be referred to as the "Registrars"). 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the "Center") on January 8, 2018. On January 9, 2018, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrars a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain names. On January 9, 2018, January 10, 2018, and January 12, 2018, the Registrars transmitted by email to the Center their verification responses confirming that the Respondents are listed as the registrants and providing the contact details.
The Center verified that the Complaint satisfied the formal requirements of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Policy" or "UDRP"), the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Rules"), and the WIPO Supplemental Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Supplemental Rules").
On February 2, 2018, the Complainant withdrew two domain names from the Complaint.
In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2 and 4, the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on February 7, 2018. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was February 27, 2018. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent's default on February 28, 2018.
The Center appointed Adam Taylor as the sole panelist in this matter on March 5, 2018. The Panel finds that it was properly constituted. The Panel has submitted the Statement of Acceptance and Declaration of Impartiality and Independence, as required by the Center to ensure compliance with the Rules, paragraph 7. 4. Factual Background
Since about 2008, the Complainant, incorporated in the United States, has operated a free credit and financial management platform under the name "Credit Karma", which provides consumers with access to credit data and reports as well as credit monitoring services and educational content and reviews for a wide range of financial products.
The Complainant has some 700 employees and more than 75 million members in the United States and Canada. In 2015, the Complainant's operating revenue was some USD 350 million.
The Complainant owns the following registered trademarks:
- United States trade mark no. 4014356 for CREDIT KARMA, registered on August 23, 2011, in class 35; and
- United States trade mark no. 5057486 for the stylized words "Credit Karma" plus design, registered on October 11, 2016, in classes 9, 35, 36, 38, 41 and 45.
The Complainant also owns many domain names reflecting the term "Credit Karma".
The disputed domain names were registered in the period from January 5, 2012 to October 23, 2012.
The disputed domain names have been used for parking pages with sponsored links to credit related websites. 5. Parties' Contentions A. Complainant
The following is a summary of the Complainant's contentions.
It is appropriate to consolidate all of the disputed domain names in this Complaint as the evidence shows that, albeit registered through different registrars, the disputed domain names are under common control of "Zhichao Yang", who has a history of registering similar typosquatted domain names with different registrars. Furthermore, many of the disputed domain names share the same IP address, are similar to each other and virtually all were registered during the same period from January 5, 2012 to October 23, 2012. The disputed domain names also resolve to identical parked websites.
The Complainant and its marks are famous and enjoy a wide-reaching reputation in connection with personal finance products and services. The Complainant has expended significant time and money promoting its trademarks and has won many awards of the past eight years.
The disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the Complainant's trade mark.
They are deliberate misspellings of the Complainant's mark, differing only by the omission, transposition, addition, and substitution of 1-3 letters in, to, or from the words "Credit" and "Karma," and, in the case of , the addition of the generic descriptor "score." These changes are insufficient to distinguish the domain names from the Complainant's trade mark.
Compared to the Complainant's trade mark, the vast majority of the disputed domain names have the same sonority, cadence and pronunciation and, above all, the same (or virtually identical) first and last syllables which are predominant when assessing whether a domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trade mark.
The deliberate introduction of errors or changes does not render the disputed domain names less confusingly similar to the Complainant's trade mark.
Adding a generic term to a domain name does not reduce the risk of confusion with the corresponding trade mark.
The Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names.
The Complainant has never permitted the Respondent to use its marks.
The Respondent has no identifiable history of using the disputed domain names in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. The Respondent's use of the disputed domain names for parking websites designed to profit from the Complainant's reputation is insufficient to establish rights or legitimate interests.
The Respondent is not referred to and is not commonly known by the disputed domain names. The Respondent is not making any legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain names.
A domain name which is a misspelling of a trade mark cannot be considered use in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services, or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use.
The disputed domain names were registered and are being used in bad faith.
Bad faith can be presumed in that the Respondent was aware of the Complainant's well-known trademarks, the disputed domain names involve typosquatting and the Respondent has engaged in a pattern of registering domain names which resemble well-known trademarks.
In any case, the Respondent has opportunistically registered and used domain names that are virtually identical to the Complainant's marks in order to intentionally attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to Respondent's websites by creating a likelihood of confusion – by means of parking pages with links to the Complainant's competitors. B. Respondents
The Respondents did not reply to the Complainant's contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings A. Consolidation
The principles governing the question of whether a complaint may be brought by multiple complainants or against multiple respondents are set out in section 4.11 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition ("WIPO Overview 3.0").
Here, the Panel is satisfied that the disputed domain names are subject to common control in that, amongst other things: they all have the same underlying registrant ("Zhichao Yang") and the same registrant email address; they were all registered in 2012; they all follow a similar typosquatting pattern; and they have all been used for similar parking pages.
The Panel is satisfied that, in the circumstances of this case, consolidation is fair and equitable to all parties and also procedurally efficient. B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has rights in the mark "Credit Karma" by virtue of its registered trademarks as well as unregistered trade mark rights deriving from the extensive use of that name.
One of the disputed domain names, , consists of the addition of the descriptive term "score" as well as a misspelling of "karma", where "k" is replaced with "c".
All of the other disputed domain names may fairly be described as typosquatting variations of the Complainant's trade mark.
Section 1.9 of WIPO Overview 3.0 makes clear that a domain name which consists of a common, obvious, or intentional misspelling of a trade mark is considered by panels to be confusingly similar to the relevant mark for purposes of the first element. This stems from the fact that the domain name contains sufficiently recognizable aspects of the relevant mark.
Here, it is plain to see that the disputed domain names form part of an extensive pattern of conduct designed to confuse users seeking or expecting the Complainant – see further below – and that the disputed domain names are all intentional misspellings of the Complainant's mark. While the degree of similarity with the Complainant's mark inevitably varies amongst the disputed domain names, in the Panel's view the Complainant's mark remains readily recognisable within each of them.
For the above reasons, the Panel concludes that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the Complainant's trade mark.
The Panel therefore finds that the Complainant has established the first element of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy. C. Rights or Legitimate Interests
As explained in section 2.1 of WIPO Overview 3.0, the consensus view is that, where a complainant makes out a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests, the burden of production shifts to the respondent to come forward with relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. If not, the complainant is deemed to have satisfied the second element.
Here, the Complainant has not licensed or otherwise authorised the Respondent to use its trade mark.
As to paragraph 4(c)(i) of the Policy, the disputed domain names have been used for parking page with links to credit-related services, similar to those supplied by the Complainant. Such use of the disputed domain names could not of itself confer rights or legitimate interests. See section 2.9 of WIPO Overview 3.0, which states that use of a domain names to host parked pages comprising PPC links does not represent a bona fide offering where such links compete with or capitalize on the reputation and goodwill of the complainant's mark or otherwise mislead Internet users.
Nor is there any evidence that paragraph 4(c)(ii) or 4(c)(iii) of the Policy apply in the circumstances of this case.
The Panel finds that the Complainant has established a prima facie case of lack of rights or legitimate interests and there is no rebuttal by the Respondent
The Panel concludes that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names and that the Complainant has therefore established the second element of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy. D. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
The disputed domain names all involve misspellings of the Complainant's distinctive and well-known trade mark and have been used for parking pages with sponsored links relevant to the Complainant's area of business.
It is plain, therefore, that the Respondent registered the disputed domain names with the Complainant very much in mind.
In the Panel's view, paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy applies. By using the disputed domain names in connection with a parking page with links to services relating to the Complainant's industry, the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract Internet users to its websites for commercial gain by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant's trade mark. 7. Decision
For the foregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the disputed domain names, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , and be transferred to the Complainant.
Adam Taylor
Sole Panelist
Date: March 19, 2018
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy